Voters are being urged
not to respond to exit polls outside voting stations during Sunday's district
council elections as information may be used in last-minute campaigning.
Wearing surgical masks adorned with an X to help make the plea for silence,
pan- democrat lawmakers said they are concerned about data from some pollsters
going to certain groups - presumably pro-establishment candidates - before
voting ends.

Polling stations will be open from 7.30am and
close at 10.30pm.

Democratic Party legislator Emily Lau
Wai-hing, who is not a candidate, said pan- democrats have for years expressed
concerns about exit polls to the Electoral Affairs Commission but have been
ignored.

Civic Party lawmaker Audrey Eu Yuet- mee, who
is also not a district council candidate, said she had suggested that only
universities be allowed to conduct exit polls and there be clear guidelines
about data collected not being used on polling day. But this was rejected by
the commission, she said.

Lau admitted that their call may affect
genuine academic research, such as that by the Public Opinion Programme at the
University of Hong Kong. But she understood from POP director Robert
Chung Ting-yiu that members of his team would be in outfits to identify
themselves in the 19 constituencies where they plan to conduct exit polls.
Still, the public must be cautious, Lau said. She had come up against a data
collector claiming falsely to be a government worker.

Commission chairman Barnabas Fung Wah said
after visiting a mock polling station yesterday that his office has approved
nine of 10 groups or individuals who have applied to conduct exit polls. All
said their polling is for academic research. If any of them were known to have
close links to candidates, Fung added, the commission would not have approved
an application. But he declined to say why one application was refused.

Speaking for some exit pollsters, the Hong
Kong Research Association's Mak Yin-mei said an independent institution will
not pass data to particular parties.

About 2.9 million people are eligible to vote
on Sunday. There will be 839 candidates contesting 336 seats across the
18 districts. But candidates in 76 of the 412 constituencies are standing
uncontested.

The list of organisations and persons allowed
to conduct exit poll by district for 2011 District Council can be found here.

The polls closed at 10.30pm. At 10.50pm,
the Hong Kong Research Association posted its exit poll results in 25 districts
(see link).
These districts contains the most discussed races which involves well-known
politicians.

Since the actual vote tallies would not be
known until several hours later, these exit poll results were used extensively
in the televised coverage that night. The research question of interest
here is whether these exit poll results were skewed by the pan-democrats'
boycott call to the point where they become useless.

In the following, I have compiled a table in
which the exit poll information is posed together with the actual vote tallies
(see link).
I have colored the vote leader/poll leader in
yellow. If you are
interested in running your own analyses, you can use my
Excel spreadsheet which contains some
additional information on response rate.

District

Candidate 1

Candidate 2

Candidate 3

Candidate 4

Peak

Tanya Chan

Joseph Chan Ho Lim

Vote#

820

1,505

Vote%

35.3%

64.7%

Poll#

140

215

Poll%

39.4%

60.6%

Kwun Long

Ip Kwok Him

Leung Kwok Hung

Vote#

2,723

973

Vote%

73.7%

26.3%

Poll#

173

38

Poll%

81.8%

18.2%

Sheung Wan

Yim Tat Ming

Chan Yin Ho

Kam Nai Wai

Vote#

270

910

1,450

Vote%

10.3%

34.6%

55.1%

Poll#

21

46

105

Poll%

12.3%

26.8%

60.9%

Tai Hang

Richard Shum

Wong Chor Fung

Christopher Lau

Sin Chung Kai

Vote#

43

1,266

151

965

Vote%

1.8%

52.2%

6.2%

39.8%

Poll#

8

192

21

183

Poll%

1.9%

47.6%

5.3%

45.3%

Broadwood

Pamela Pack Wan Kam

Michael Mak Kwok Fung

Vote#

1,262

742

Vote%

63.0%

37.0%

Poll#

149

71

Poll%

67.6%

32.4%

South Horizons West

Fung Wai Kwong

Anthony Lam Yue Yeung

Sze Chun Fai

Kwai Sze Kit

Vote#

1,906

182

1,894

42

Vote%

47.4%

4.5%

47.1%

1.0%

Poll#

107

10

169

8

Poll%

36.3%

3.4%

57.6%

2.7%

Bays Area

Fergus Fung Se Goun

Albert Lai Kwok Tak

Vote#

970

309

Vote%

75.8%

24.2%

Poll#

227

42

Poll%

84.4%

15.6%

Olympic

Chu King Leung

James To Kun Sun

Vincent Lau Kai Kit

Vote#

101

1,012

886

Vote%

5.1%

50.6%

44.3%

Poll#

15

114

178

Poll%

5.0%

37.0%

58.0%

Lai Kok

Frederick Fung Kin Kee

Chiu Chik Tung

Chung Wing Yuen

Fan Kwok Fai

Vote#

2,528

239

75

2,015

Vote%

52.0%

4.9%

1.5%

41.5%

Poll#

281

20

12

255

Poll%

49.4%

3.6%

2.1%

44.9%

To Kwa Wan North

Starry Lee Wai King

Cody Wong Tze Hei

Vote#

1,534

322

Vote%

82.7%

17.3%

Poll#

290

46

Poll%

86.4%

13.6%

Whampoa East

Leung Mei Fun

Helena Wong Pik Wan

Jeff Au Yeung Ying Kit

Vote#

2,236

1,513

371

Vote%

54.3%

36.7%

9.0%

Poll#

436

193

61

Poll%

63.1%

28.0%

8.9%

Lung Sheung

Chan Yuen Han

Lam Wai Kei

Edward Yum Liang Hsien

Vote#

3,456

1,039

441

Vote%

70.0%

21.0%

8.9%

Poll#

583

167

114

Poll%

67.5%

19.3%

13.2%

Chuk Yuen North

Chan Ka Wai

Roy Ting Chi Wai

Andrew To Kwan Hang

Vote#

507

2,754

1,660

Vote%

10.3%

56.0%

33.7%

Poll#

70

361

186

Poll%

11.4%

58.5%

30.1%

Discovery Park

Louis Wong Yui Tak

Michael Tien Puk Sun

Vote#

2,002

2,256

Vote%

47.0%

53.0%

Poll#

314

444

Poll%

41.4%

58.6%

Lok Tsui

Albert Chan Wai Yip

Albert Ho Chun Yan

Shum Kam Tim

Vote#

303

1,876

1,477

Vote%

8.3%

51.3%

40.4%

Poll#

34

201

165

Poll%

8.4%

50.3%

41.3%

Fu Yan

Lee Cheuk Yan

Lau Kwai Yung

Vote#

1,700

1,838

Vote%

48.0%

52.0%

Poll#

529

479

Poll%

52.5%

47.5%

Pat Heung North

Ronnie Tang Yung Yiu

Eddie Chu Hoi Dick

Tang Kwai Yau

Vote#

1,350

283

1,439

Vote%

43.9%

9.2%

46.8%

Poll#

20

13

36

Poll%

28.7%

18.4%

52.9%

Choi Yuen

So Sai Chi

Au Wai Kong

Wong Sing Chi

Vote#

2,773

349

1,673

Vote%

57.8%

7.3%

34.9%

Poll#

480

58

262

Poll%

60.0%

7.2%

32.7%

Po Nga

Wong Yung Kan

Kenneth Cheung Kam Hung

Vote#

2,417

1,196

Vote%

66.9%

33.1%

Poll#

337

117

Poll%

74.3%

25.7%

City One

Ronny Tong Ka Wah

Wong Ka Wing

Vote#

1,582

3,060

Vote%

34.1%

65.9%

Poll#

187

469

Poll%

28.5%

71.5%

Tin Sum

Lau Kong Wah

Suen Tsan Pui

Vote#

1,612

521

Vote%

75.6%

24.4%

Poll#

357

90

Poll%

79.8%

20.2%

Fo Tan

Scarlett Pong Oi Lan

Chan Tak Cheung

Porinda Liu Huan Yee

Vote#

1,640

522

295

Vote%

66.7%

21.2%

12.0%

Poll#

473

94

71

Poll%

74.2%

14.7%

11.2%

Ma On Shan Town Centre

Richard Tsoi Yiu Cheong

Alvin Lee Chin Wing

Vote#

1,421

2,180

Vote%

39.5%

60.5%

Poll#

255

558

Poll%

31.4%

68.7%

Kwai Fong

Leung Yiu Chung

Eddie Chan Wing Lai

Vote#

3,944

387

Vote%

91.1%

8.9%

Poll#

533

52

Poll%

91.1%

8.9%

Lai Wah

Raymong Chan Chi Chuen

Lee Wing Tat

Chu Lai Ling

Vote#

333

1,582

1,923

Vote%

8.7%

41.2%

50.1%

Poll#

28

70

143

Poll%

11.5%

29.0%

59.4%

First of all, it is noted that the Hong Kong
Research Association reported that they made attempts to interview 30,776 voters
on their way out. Only 12,172 (or 39.5%) responded. This is not a
good response rate for public opinion polling. However, it is
under-appreciated that this does not automatically invalidate the data.
After all, it is theoretically possible for a poll with 39.5% response rate to
be closer to the truth than a poll with 60.0% response rate (see Footnote 1).
In the final analysis, the criterion will still have to be whether these data
are accurate enough for calling the winners and gauging the margins of
victory/defeat at a time when the vote tallies were not yet available.

Out of 25 cases, the Hong Kong Research
Association called the races in the right direction in 22 cases (88% accuracy).
In other words, it was wrong in only 3 cases:

Olympic: The HKRA called 37.0% for James To
Kun Sun and 58.0% for Vincent Lau Kai Kit. The vote tallies were 50.6%f
for James To Kun Sun and 44.3% for Vincent Lau Kai Kit.

Fu Yan: The HKRA called 52.5% for Lee Cheuk
Yan and 47.5% for Lau Kwai Yung. The vote tallies were 48.0% for Lee
Cheuk Yan and 52.0% for Lau Kwai Yung.

In practice, the case of Fu Yan would be
characterized as "too close to call."

In conclusion, the Hong Kong Research
Association exit poll was serviceable notwithstanding the pan-democrats' boycott
call.

There are policy implications here. The
premise is that certain organizations are running exiting polls on election day
for the purpose of optimizing resource allocation on election day. The
antidote is to call for everyone to boycott the exit polls or lie about their
votes ("always say that you voted for the DAB candidate"). But is that
working or not? The action seems reasonable but that does not guarantee
that it will work. The assumption has to be checked against reality.
The analysis here shows that it is not working, because the Hong Kong Research
Association certainly has serviceable exit poll data that revealed patterns that
were not obvious before election day. Now what? How do you eliminate
the advantages accrued to whoever is funding these types of exit polls?
Well, that requires some thinking. What is for certain that the problem
was not solved by some piece of wishful thinking (such as a boycott call).

Footnote 1: Consider a population of 1,000
persons, of which 500 are RED and 500 are
BLUE. A poll conducted by one organization
(e.g. Joint University Public Opinion Research Institute) reached out to these
1,000 persons and only 400 responded (at 40% response rate), with 200
RED and 200 BLUE.
This poll therefore estimates a 50%/50% split which is perfect. Another
poll conducted by a different organization (e.g. RED-IS-BEST OUTREACH CAMPAIGN)
reached out to the same 1,000 persons and 600 responded (at 60%) response rate,
with 500 RED and 100 BLUE.
This poll therefore estimates a 83%/17% split which is way wrong because it
attracts the REDs and alienates the
BLUEs. So having a higher response rate does
not automatically guarantee more accurate data. This is not a suggestion
that we should avoid high response rates. This is a comment that a higher
response rate is not a panacea.